Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Image sources & quality

  • Multiple commenters track down NASA’s original high‑resolution images and galleries, noting they’re far better than the compressed BBC version.
  • BBC and media compression is criticized as “horrific” but others argue it’s reasonable to optimize for bandwidth and typical readers.
  • NASA’s own processing differences are discussed: a darker “night” image vs a brightened/longer‑exposure one; both are separate photos.

What the photo actually shows

  • Many initially think it’s the dayside Earth; others point out it’s the nightside, illuminated mostly by the almost‑full Moon.
  • Visible features highlighted: aurora at both poles, airglow, a thin atmospheric band, noctilucent clouds/aurora in the north, city lights around Iberia, West Africa, and South America, and lightning over the tropics.
  • A bright point in the lower right is identified as Venus; other bright dots are stars, distinguishable from sensor noise.

Photography & equipment details

  • EXIF analysis: Nikon D5, 14–24mm f/2.8, ~1/4 s, f/4, ISO 51,200, processed lightly in Lightroom.
  • High ISO grain is seen as both technically inevitable (dim moonlight, need to avoid motion blur) and aesthetically “realistic.”
  • Discussion compares DSLR (D5) vs newer mirrorless (Z9), with reasons given for D5: radiation resistance, proven reliability, and high-ISO performance; a Z9 is also aboard for testing.
  • Several comments dig into ISO, noise, dynamic range, JPEG compression, and why brightening and noise increase file size.

Orientation, geography, and comparisons

  • View is identified as largely North Africa, Iberia, and South America; some share Google Earth links to match the perspective.
  • Confusion over orientation leads to debate about rotating the image so “north is up” vs preserving how astronauts saw it.
  • Comparisons with 1972 “Blue Marble” note color and clarity differences, attributed to day vs night, film vs digital, medium-format vs smaller sensor, and high ISO.

Conspiracies, skepticism, and engagement

  • Flat‑Earth and “CGI” claims are raised, often jokingly, with rebuttals about detectability of launches (seismic, radar, global observers) and the difficulty of sustaining such a hoax.
  • Some argue engaging deniers is pointless and fuels them; others think conspiracism is dangerous and should be actively countered.
  • Broader critiques appear that space programs can distract from societal problems, while others emphasize the inspirational and humbling “overview effect.”

Reflections on Earth & spaceflight

  • Many express awe at seeing the whole Earth digitally photographed by humans beyond low Earth orbit again, tying it to “Pale Blue Dot” themes and the fragility and uniqueness of our planet.